The \u201cnuclear option\u201d refers to a change in the Senate rules to eliminate the option of filibustering a Supreme Court nominee, bringing the votes necessary to approve that nominee from 60 down to 51. It has been termed the \u201cnuclear option\u201d because it is generally regarded as a drastic move that, if taken, would fundamentally alter the Senate\u2019s function in the government.
Some background: President Trump announced Tuesday that he will nominate Federal Appeals Court Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Democrats are considering whether to mount a filibuster and force Republicans to obtain a 60-vote majority to advance Gorsuch\u2019s nomination. Because Republicans currently hold only 52 seats, a filibuster would force them to win support from at least eight Democrats to proceed. If Democrats successfully blockade Gorsuch\u2019s nomination by denying him 60 votes, some Republicans, including President Trump, have said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should invoke the \u201cnuclear option\u201d to remove the Supreme Court filibuster and push Gorsuch through with just 51 votes.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer addressed the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch during Wednesday’s daily press briefing. Spi…
The Supreme Court is the most powerful court in the land , and its decisions affect every facet of American life \u2013 social, political, economic, and more. Supreme Court justices enjoy lifetime tenure, so someone as young as Gorsuch, who\u2019s 49 years old, could serve for many decades before stepping down. His opinions, if he\u2019s confirmed, could affect American jurisprudence for centuries.
The \u201cnuclear option\u201d would make it far easier for Gorsuch and all future Supreme Court nominees to be confirmed.
Those pushing to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees argue the Senate has ceased to function effectively when a 60-vote threshold is required on a given vote. They say the partisan gridlock has become so intense that securing a bipartisan vote on a Supreme Court would be virtually impossible, and they argue that a Supreme Court nomination is too important to be stalled by reflexive partisanship. \u201cIf we end up with that gridlock I would say, \u2018If you can, Mitch, go nuclear,\u2019\u201d Mr. Trump said Wednesday.
Some point out that the Senate already changed its rules in 2014 to institute a 51-vote threshold for non-Supreme Court federal judiciary nominees and executive branch nominees. Invoking the \u201cnuclear option,\u201d they argue, would just be another step down the same path.
Judge Neil Gorsuch received a friendly reception from Republicans after President Trump’s announcement. But Gorsuch faces a battle from some Demo…
Those opposed to eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations say it would irrevocably alter the Senate\u2019s ability to check and balance other branches of government by removing one of the most powerful tools of the minority party. The Senate was envisioned by the founders as a \u201ccooling saucer\u201d to prevent the government from doing too much, too quickly. By allowing a minority of 41 senators to halt Senate business, the founders ensured that the House, which functions by simple majority vote, and the president, who exercises near-complete control over the executive branch, could not push through big policies without at least some buy-in from the opposition.
That buy-in, \u201cnuclear option\u201d opponents say, is especially crucial on something as important and long-lasting as a Supreme Court nomination.
Additionally, some Democrats have defended their right to filibuster Mr. Trump\u2019s nominee by pointing to Senate Republicans\u2019 treatment of Merrick Garland , who was nominated to the Supreme Court last March by former President Obama. The GOP leaders of the Senate never held hearings or a vote on Garland\u2019s nomination, and some Democrats believe turnabout is fair play \u2013 that they have every right to stall Gorsuch\u2019s nomination just as Republicans stalled Garland\u2019s.
If McConnell invokes the \u201cnuclear option,\u201d it would further empower Republicans, who currently control the White House and Congress, by easing their approval of Gorsuch and any other Supreme Court nominations Mr. Trump makes while the GOP holds the majority in the Senate.
That last detail is crucial, however — the \u201cnuclear option\u201d would empower whichever party holds the majority in the Senate. If the Republicans pull the trigger on the rule change and then lose control of the Senate in the next election, the increased power of the Senate majority would be in Democratic hands.
How Democrats respond to Gorsuch\u2019s nomination may go a long way in deciding the fate of the \u201cnuclear option.\u201d If Republican leaders are able to win support from at least eight Democrats, even a filibuster will be unable to prevent Gorsuch\u2019s confirmation. If that\u2019s the case, the motivation to change Senate rules will diminish.
If Democrats are able to prevent Republicans from amassing 60 votes, however, all bets are off. McConnell has largely avoided talk of the \u201cnuclear option\u201d thus far, suggesting the ball is in Democrats\u2019 court and he expects Gorsuch to be confirmed one way or another. He has, however, suggested he won\u2019t be swayed by outside pressure, including from the White House, as he weighs his decision. \u201c\u201cThat\u2019s not a presidential decision,\u201d McConnell recently told Politico when he was asked about invoking the nuclear option. \u201cThat\u2019s a Senate decision.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

\nSimilarity rank: 5.3\n<\/div>\n

Sentiment rank: 2.3<\/div>\n

\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n